<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226154</link>
    <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on garden maintenance services because the assessee was required by pollution-control permission to maintain green cover, creating a sufficient nexus with its business activity. Credit on GTA services could not be finally decided on the existing record because the purchase orders were incomplete and the FOR destination condition, together with freight and insurance components, had to be verified against the contractual terms and the applicable departmental circular. The credit claim on gardening services was therefore accepted, while the GTA issue was remanded for factual verification and fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226154</link>
      <description>Cenvat credit was held admissible on garden maintenance services because the assessee was required by pollution-control permission to maintain green cover, creating a sufficient nexus with its business activity. Credit on GTA services could not be finally decided on the existing record because the purchase orders were incomplete and the FOR destination condition, together with freight and insurance components, had to be verified against the contractual terms and the applicable departmental circular. The credit claim on gardening services was therefore accepted, while the GTA issue was remanded for factual verification and fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>